Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 53 (JK)

Jehlum Exports v. Surjit Kumar Baghat

2014-02-13

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2014
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 7.2.2005 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, as his Lordship then was) in Criminal Appeal no. 10 of 2004. 2. In terms of order dated 7.2.2005, the Criminal Appeal itself was held to be not maintainable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts as disclosed in the said order reveal that in a civil proceeding pending before the II Additional District Judge, Srinagar, an application was filed by the review-petitioner stating therein that the officials of the court had removed the notice on the file and substituted it with some other copy which later on was marked X by the Court while recording the statement of a witness. The complaint was looked into by the learned Presiding Officer who, by means of the order dated 27.8.2004, impugned in the criminal appeal, had come to the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegation leveled by the review-petitioner against the officials of the Court. 3. The learned Coordinate Bench, hearing the aforesaid Criminal Appeal, held that the order was not passed in a criminal proceeding and that neither any criminal complaint had been filed by the trial court nor had any cognizance on the criminal side been taken; the proceedings, therefore, did not fall within the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court, accordingly, held that the appeal under the provisions of the Code cannot lie. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter. 5. This review petition is equally not maintainable. There is no provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Court to review its orders and judgments. In fact, Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a bar to review the judgment already passed by this Court. The aforesaid provision of the Code is quoted hereunder: "369. 5. This review petition is equally not maintainable. There is no provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Court to review its orders and judgments. In fact, Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a bar to review the judgment already passed by this Court. The aforesaid provision of the Code is quoted hereunder: "369. Court not to alter judgment Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of the High Court, by the Constitution of High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical error." The learned counsel has not brought any provision of law to the notice of this Court that empowers this Court to alter a judgment passed in a criminal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras 1954 SCR 1229 and Ghulam Abbas v. Mulla Abdul Kadar, 1970 (3) SCC 653. I have gone through these judgments. These judgments on their face do not even remotely concern the point raised by the petitioner in the present review petition. Whereas the judgment in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (supra concerns an appeal under Section 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the order of Division Bench of the High Court to the Supreme Court, the judgment in Ghulam Abbas v. Mulla Abdul Kadar (supra) concerns a civil case. These judgments are, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. 7. This petition for review is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.